Search
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated A Distant Melody (Wings of Glory, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Allie has never been able to please her parents, so she’ll do anything to make them happy, even if it means marrying a man she doesn’t love. But when she goes to visit her best friend for her wedding, she meets Walter Novak, flyer in the Air Force, and her heart begins to open to him. Allie and Walter write letters while he’s oversees, and Allie tries to anticipate her wedding with her promised fiancé, but as she gets to know Baxter more and more, she begins to have doubts about God’s will for her life—obey and honor her parents and marry a non-Christian in hopes of leading him to Christ, or disobey her parents and refuse to be “unevenly yoked?” And the fact that she’s falling in love with Walt isn’t helping things any.
I adored A Distant Melody. From the second I opened it, it captured my imagination and swept me away.
The plot seemed simple at first, but it kept taking little twists and turns that I didn’t expect. It was suspenseful, but not in a thriller kind of way. There were times when Walt was flying that were very exciting and thrilling, but it wasn’t enough to put it in that genre. It had just enough. The pacing itself was perfect—nothing felt rushed. I hate a rushed romance, it’s implausible. A Distant Melody is the perfect speed. I devoured it within a few hours.
I love these characters! I want more with them!!! One awesome aspect about A Distant Melody is it is not a victim of “happy-land syndrome,” or “perfect plot” syndrome. The story didn’t seem to work out just perfect with everyone happy all the time, and everyone talking about God all the time, and everyone acting like perfect Christians all the time. No, they were real people who sinned and suffered the consequences, both from other people and from their guilt and grief. There were times and parts where you say “Oh no! Now he’s going to think this!” or “Oh no she hasn’t gotten his letter yet!” and so on. However, their confessions of said sins were also such a key part of the story, and made you love them so much more.
I liked the writing a lot. Sundin has a clear concise way with words, and paints a picture without being poetic. I also loved her wit and humor, and those Sarah-Dessen-like running jokes. You have to love those running jokes that run through the whole book, that make you feel like you’re part of the character’s life.
I know I usually don’t say anything about the cover because generally I don’t care about the cover. In this case, the cover is perfect. It has every detail mentioned in the book, from the right clothing and hairstyles of the characters to the detail work on the air plane.
A very important thing about a Christian novel is it shouldn't feel like it’s preaching at you. There was prayer, Bible verses, hymns and such. But it didn’t feel cheesy and fake: partially because of the characters (as I mentioned above) and partially because although they were mentioned and discussed, they weren’t hammered. Basically, this was not Sundin’s way of publishing a theology book. It’s a novel, and it feels like one.
I think I loved everything about this book. I loved the characters, I loved the writing, I loved the plot and the pacing, I loved the jokes, I even love the cover. I can’t think of one thing that I didn’t like, or that distracted me from the story. I devoured A Distant Melody, thoroughly enjoyed every part of it, and I cannot wait for the next book.
I adored A Distant Melody. From the second I opened it, it captured my imagination and swept me away.
The plot seemed simple at first, but it kept taking little twists and turns that I didn’t expect. It was suspenseful, but not in a thriller kind of way. There were times when Walt was flying that were very exciting and thrilling, but it wasn’t enough to put it in that genre. It had just enough. The pacing itself was perfect—nothing felt rushed. I hate a rushed romance, it’s implausible. A Distant Melody is the perfect speed. I devoured it within a few hours.
I love these characters! I want more with them!!! One awesome aspect about A Distant Melody is it is not a victim of “happy-land syndrome,” or “perfect plot” syndrome. The story didn’t seem to work out just perfect with everyone happy all the time, and everyone talking about God all the time, and everyone acting like perfect Christians all the time. No, they were real people who sinned and suffered the consequences, both from other people and from their guilt and grief. There were times and parts where you say “Oh no! Now he’s going to think this!” or “Oh no she hasn’t gotten his letter yet!” and so on. However, their confessions of said sins were also such a key part of the story, and made you love them so much more.
I liked the writing a lot. Sundin has a clear concise way with words, and paints a picture without being poetic. I also loved her wit and humor, and those Sarah-Dessen-like running jokes. You have to love those running jokes that run through the whole book, that make you feel like you’re part of the character’s life.
I know I usually don’t say anything about the cover because generally I don’t care about the cover. In this case, the cover is perfect. It has every detail mentioned in the book, from the right clothing and hairstyles of the characters to the detail work on the air plane.
A very important thing about a Christian novel is it shouldn't feel like it’s preaching at you. There was prayer, Bible verses, hymns and such. But it didn’t feel cheesy and fake: partially because of the characters (as I mentioned above) and partially because although they were mentioned and discussed, they weren’t hammered. Basically, this was not Sundin’s way of publishing a theology book. It’s a novel, and it feels like one.
I think I loved everything about this book. I loved the characters, I loved the writing, I loved the plot and the pacing, I loved the jokes, I even love the cover. I can’t think of one thing that I didn’t like, or that distracted me from the story. I devoured A Distant Melody, thoroughly enjoyed every part of it, and I cannot wait for the next book.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of The Dark Pictures Anthology: Man of Medan in Video Games
May 29, 2020
A thrilling play
Games like this dont appeal to everyone. It's not full of action, beating people up or a massive open world full of free play. It also doesnt drag on for 40+ hours. However for people like me who struggle with those type of games, Man of Medan is a breath of fresh air.
I'd previously played and rather enjoyed Until Dawn, and I'm pleased to say this follows much in the same vein although it's probably a much shorter story. Graphically this is very impressive looking and like Until Dawn, they've thrown in yet another recognisable face (this time it's Shawn Ashmore aka Bobby from X-Men). The characters look amazing and the setting too. The story too is a good and interesting one, although it does feel a little similar to other stories (like Ghost Ship) and may be a tad predictable. We worked out what was going on well before the third act. That said, I still found it to be absolutely terrifying. Playing a game like this is a lot scarier than watching any horror film!
The gameplay works really well. The fact that you can play this with friends, either online or couch co-op, adds another fun dimension to it all. The decision making also means that there are so many different endings and outcomes (I believe there's over 60 possible ways for the characters to die) that the replayability is surprisingly better than you'd expect. Admittedly it would probably get a bit tedious trying to uncover absolutely everything and all possible outcomes, but playing a few times over is still enjoyable.
The only downsides are the lag and load issues. Most likely due to the decision making process and actions, there is a noticeable lag in some of the cut scenes and movements which is bearable but can noticeably affect the smooth running of the game. There's also the characters themselves. They look great, but they're very cliched and have very little personality or interest too them. And the script is a little cheesy at times which only further impacts with a slight dislike of the characters. Part of me actually wanted to kill them all off...
Overall a great story and an interesting game to play, if you're looking for something a little different.
I'd previously played and rather enjoyed Until Dawn, and I'm pleased to say this follows much in the same vein although it's probably a much shorter story. Graphically this is very impressive looking and like Until Dawn, they've thrown in yet another recognisable face (this time it's Shawn Ashmore aka Bobby from X-Men). The characters look amazing and the setting too. The story too is a good and interesting one, although it does feel a little similar to other stories (like Ghost Ship) and may be a tad predictable. We worked out what was going on well before the third act. That said, I still found it to be absolutely terrifying. Playing a game like this is a lot scarier than watching any horror film!
The gameplay works really well. The fact that you can play this with friends, either online or couch co-op, adds another fun dimension to it all. The decision making also means that there are so many different endings and outcomes (I believe there's over 60 possible ways for the characters to die) that the replayability is surprisingly better than you'd expect. Admittedly it would probably get a bit tedious trying to uncover absolutely everything and all possible outcomes, but playing a few times over is still enjoyable.
The only downsides are the lag and load issues. Most likely due to the decision making process and actions, there is a noticeable lag in some of the cut scenes and movements which is bearable but can noticeably affect the smooth running of the game. There's also the characters themselves. They look great, but they're very cliched and have very little personality or interest too them. And the script is a little cheesy at times which only further impacts with a slight dislike of the characters. Part of me actually wanted to kill them all off...
Overall a great story and an interesting game to play, if you're looking for something a little different.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
TM
The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution
Book
In the tradition of Theodore White's landmark books, the definitive look at how Donald J. Trump...
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Crime in Books
Feb 19, 2019 (Updated Feb 19, 2019)
More tense, gripping crime set in Edinburgh
*** Disclosure - I received a free advance copy of this book from the publishers and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review ***
The 5th book in the increasingly badly titled "DI Luc Callanach" series (he is hardly in this one!) follows much the same template as the other 4 books. A body is found in mysterious circumstances, here it is the body of a young man who appears to have thrown himself from the top of a tower in East Lothian. Soon thereafter, other bodies start to turn up, all looking like suicides or are people who had previously tried to commit suicide. At the same time, another body turns up, this time with a personal connection to one DI Callanach. So again we have the two investigations running in parallel. Though because of the apparent connection, the eponymous DI Callanach is taken off active duty and is largely absent for the second half of the book.
The main investigation is interesting: someone taking against those who do not value their life and have tried to end it in the past, and he decides to end it for them. However, there is a twist along the way that just did not feel right. For this murderer to suddenly become a Red Dragon-style character was somewhat at odds with the story at that point.
The lesser investigation was more interesting as there was so much evidence suggesting Callanach committed the murder, though we believed he hadn't.
As with previous books, a story written in Edinburgh (or other cities with an identity) by someone who doesn't live there has a good chance of missing the mark with the dialogue. People we are led to believe are proper sumbags do not come across as that, their phrasing is just so wrong. I had found this in the previous books, where incidental characters had no discernible voice or characteristics and were just vanilla plot devices.
Similarly, the murderer at one point uses a phrase no Scotsman has ever uttered and that took me right out of the book.
The plot is more or less faultless, with all events and motives seeming plausible, except one issue right at the end where an item of evidence was so mis-handled as to be laughable, but served the plot perfectly.
On the whole, this was a good enjoyable read, but I had guessed the identities of the murderers quite early on. Far from original and moments that just felt like clangers.
I am guessing this is almost the last we'll see of Luc Callanach, who has (rightly) been relegated to support cast from book 2, in favour of the strong, better-defined, female character.
The 5th book in the increasingly badly titled "DI Luc Callanach" series (he is hardly in this one!) follows much the same template as the other 4 books. A body is found in mysterious circumstances, here it is the body of a young man who appears to have thrown himself from the top of a tower in East Lothian. Soon thereafter, other bodies start to turn up, all looking like suicides or are people who had previously tried to commit suicide. At the same time, another body turns up, this time with a personal connection to one DI Callanach. So again we have the two investigations running in parallel. Though because of the apparent connection, the eponymous DI Callanach is taken off active duty and is largely absent for the second half of the book.
The main investigation is interesting: someone taking against those who do not value their life and have tried to end it in the past, and he decides to end it for them. However, there is a twist along the way that just did not feel right. For this murderer to suddenly become a Red Dragon-style character was somewhat at odds with the story at that point.
The lesser investigation was more interesting as there was so much evidence suggesting Callanach committed the murder, though we believed he hadn't.
As with previous books, a story written in Edinburgh (or other cities with an identity) by someone who doesn't live there has a good chance of missing the mark with the dialogue. People we are led to believe are proper sumbags do not come across as that, their phrasing is just so wrong. I had found this in the previous books, where incidental characters had no discernible voice or characteristics and were just vanilla plot devices.
Similarly, the murderer at one point uses a phrase no Scotsman has ever uttered and that took me right out of the book.
The plot is more or less faultless, with all events and motives seeming plausible, except one issue right at the end where an item of evidence was so mis-handled as to be laughable, but served the plot perfectly.
On the whole, this was a good enjoyable read, but I had guessed the identities of the murderers quite early on. Far from original and moments that just felt like clangers.
I am guessing this is almost the last we'll see of Luc Callanach, who has (rightly) been relegated to support cast from book 2, in favour of the strong, better-defined, female character.
Darren (1599 KP) rated CHIPS (2017) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: CHIPS starts as an undercover FBI agent Ponch (Pena) must joining the California Highway Patrol undercover with rookie officers Jon (Shepard) being his partner as Ponch must discover who is the dirty cop in the unit.
As the two are clearly complete opposites and Jon is the only one in the department that Ponch could trust to uncover the truth about the string of robberies.
Thoughts on CHIPS
Characters – Ponch is the FBI agent that is known for getting the cases closed even if the methods go across the lines, his latest case is becoming part of CHIPS to uncover a string of robberies that is believed to involve the members in the force. Joon is the former stunt man that wants to fix his marriage by joining the CHIPS team, he has had multiply injuries and will do anything to try and keep the job proving his worth to the force. These two are both very different and must put aside their difference to solve the crime. Ray Kruz is the main villain running the operation from within the force. We get plenty of different officers or agents from different levels of the police system which shows us who we will be dealing with through the film.
Performances – This is hard because saying anything bad about Michael Pena is upsetting, here he doesn’t hit the comedy we know he can and as for Dax Shepard we must be blaming him more because he wrote, directed and starred in this insulting comedy, we know he is good when given the right material, here he only lets us down. The rest of the cast just don’t get any moments to shine.
Story – The story here follows two unlikely cops that must work together to uncover who is behind a string of crimes from within the force. This is the simple part of the film, the problems start mounting up easily and quickly, first the humour is insulting for anything that happens as the characters are left doing sex, poop and more lazy sexist jokes. Considering this was a popular TV shows, I feel the creator must feel insulted with what we are given, this fails on capturing any of the Starsky and Hutch or 21 Jump Street humour we enjoyed and just becomes boring quickly, not adding any mystery to who is behind the crimes either.
Action/Comedy/Crime – The action in this film is lazy even if it is the only highlight of the film with a couple of the chases being the most interesting part of the film. the comedy is an insult to comedy while the crime world shows us only police corruption.
Settings – The film is set in LA, I think mostly to use the sewer system for the chases otherwise it could have been any city.
Scene of the Movie – Bike chase.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the comedy movies you really should never be watching, it doesn’t get any laughs and just ends up being left feeling insulting.
Overall: This is why we don’t have comedy hits anymore.
As the two are clearly complete opposites and Jon is the only one in the department that Ponch could trust to uncover the truth about the string of robberies.
Thoughts on CHIPS
Characters – Ponch is the FBI agent that is known for getting the cases closed even if the methods go across the lines, his latest case is becoming part of CHIPS to uncover a string of robberies that is believed to involve the members in the force. Joon is the former stunt man that wants to fix his marriage by joining the CHIPS team, he has had multiply injuries and will do anything to try and keep the job proving his worth to the force. These two are both very different and must put aside their difference to solve the crime. Ray Kruz is the main villain running the operation from within the force. We get plenty of different officers or agents from different levels of the police system which shows us who we will be dealing with through the film.
Performances – This is hard because saying anything bad about Michael Pena is upsetting, here he doesn’t hit the comedy we know he can and as for Dax Shepard we must be blaming him more because he wrote, directed and starred in this insulting comedy, we know he is good when given the right material, here he only lets us down. The rest of the cast just don’t get any moments to shine.
Story – The story here follows two unlikely cops that must work together to uncover who is behind a string of crimes from within the force. This is the simple part of the film, the problems start mounting up easily and quickly, first the humour is insulting for anything that happens as the characters are left doing sex, poop and more lazy sexist jokes. Considering this was a popular TV shows, I feel the creator must feel insulted with what we are given, this fails on capturing any of the Starsky and Hutch or 21 Jump Street humour we enjoyed and just becomes boring quickly, not adding any mystery to who is behind the crimes either.
Action/Comedy/Crime – The action in this film is lazy even if it is the only highlight of the film with a couple of the chases being the most interesting part of the film. the comedy is an insult to comedy while the crime world shows us only police corruption.
Settings – The film is set in LA, I think mostly to use the sewer system for the chases otherwise it could have been any city.
Scene of the Movie – Bike chase.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the comedy movies you really should never be watching, it doesn’t get any laughs and just ends up being left feeling insulting.
Overall: This is why we don’t have comedy hits anymore.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Laura (40 KP) rated Moxie: A Novel in Books
Oct 21, 2017
The Feminist Novel I wish I had as a teen.
Moxie, the book that I wish had been around when I was younger. The book that smashed my reading slump to smithereens. The book that I fiercely related to. Moxie is such an important read, a YA book that looks at everyday sexism, rape culture and feminism, while also telling a good story.
Something I really liked is that Vivian is not some perfect all-knowing feminist. She listens and learns to people, after the Moxie zine starts the conversation. Through these conversations between various characters, so much is discussed, taking advantage of different perspectives. There is this wonderful feeling of community, of support and safe spaces. The very concept of feminism is analysed, challenging the misconception held my many that feminism equals men hating, and exploring the stigma attached to the word ‘feminist’.
There is also a romance plotline running through the book. Vivian is attracted to new boy Seth, and she is even more interested when she realised that he is actually a nice guy, unlike so many other boys at school. He actually likes the Moxie zines, and shows his support for the movement. However he is not perfect, and sometimes he just does not get certain things. This opens the discussion that while a man can be a feminist, it is important to listen and learn about how everyday sexism effects women.
The overall message is about girls supporting each other, and Moxie being an inclusive movement for everyone. I loved that there was next to no girl hate in the novel, and that the way women and girls are pitted against each other was brought up and addressed. There are so many wonderful, empowering moments in this book, I used a lot of sticky notes to mark them all. Having said that, obviously this book deals with sexism, but it also covers sexual harassment, and sexual assault/attempted rape, which may be triggering for some readers. Please be aware of this going in, it’s addressed, there is an overall atmosphere of female empowerment and overcoming, but I don’t want anyone to get caught by surprise.
I wish this book had been around when I was in high school. I really wish it had been around for my younger sister, who had a similar experience with dress-code enforcement as shown in the book. This book is so powerful, and so important.
Something I really liked is that Vivian is not some perfect all-knowing feminist. She listens and learns to people, after the Moxie zine starts the conversation. Through these conversations between various characters, so much is discussed, taking advantage of different perspectives. There is this wonderful feeling of community, of support and safe spaces. The very concept of feminism is analysed, challenging the misconception held my many that feminism equals men hating, and exploring the stigma attached to the word ‘feminist’.
There is also a romance plotline running through the book. Vivian is attracted to new boy Seth, and she is even more interested when she realised that he is actually a nice guy, unlike so many other boys at school. He actually likes the Moxie zines, and shows his support for the movement. However he is not perfect, and sometimes he just does not get certain things. This opens the discussion that while a man can be a feminist, it is important to listen and learn about how everyday sexism effects women.
The overall message is about girls supporting each other, and Moxie being an inclusive movement for everyone. I loved that there was next to no girl hate in the novel, and that the way women and girls are pitted against each other was brought up and addressed. There are so many wonderful, empowering moments in this book, I used a lot of sticky notes to mark them all. Having said that, obviously this book deals with sexism, but it also covers sexual harassment, and sexual assault/attempted rape, which may be triggering for some readers. Please be aware of this going in, it’s addressed, there is an overall atmosphere of female empowerment and overcoming, but I don’t want anyone to get caught by surprise.
I wish this book had been around when I was in high school. I really wish it had been around for my younger sister, who had a similar experience with dress-code enforcement as shown in the book. This book is so powerful, and so important.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Magic of Terry Pratchett in Books
May 27, 2020
As a child who was brought up in a house of Discworld stories, with a stepfather who (still) proudly displays the Clarecraft Rincewind figurine which bears an uncanny likeness to him, and a mother who has a matching Nanny Ogg (it bears no likeness but let’s just say encompasses a couple of her characteristics), this was an ARC that I was frankly desperate to read. I have to thank Netgalley and Marc Burrows for granting me this opportunity. My opinions are enthusiastic, and entirely my own.
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?
As a 32 year old female, mother and accountant you may be forgiven for expecting my book reviews to be based around chick-lit or classical novels and, although it is the case that I own several very well-read copies of Pride & Prejudice, I am wholly a child of the sci-fi/fantasy genre. Terry Pratchett novels sit alongside George RR Martin, Terry Brooks, David Eddings and Ursula Le Guin in my house; I owned and loved Discworld computer games and probably know every word to the film Labyrinth.
It could therefore be said that I would find Marc Burrow’s biography fascinating regardless: however, I am ashamed to say that, before reading this book, I knew very little about the life of the author whose books I admire so much.
Burrows structures his writing predictably enough, running through the life of Terry Pratchett chronologically, from his working-class upbringing; his career in journalism; the progression in popularity of his novels; his knighthood all the way up to his untimely death from Alzheimer’s. However, this is where an affiliation to any standard biography ends.
It is immediately apparent that Marc Burrows is an avid Terry Pratchett fan, even without reading his foreword, due to the inclusion of footnotes: a writing style which is synonymous with Pratchett. This allows Burrows, as it did with Pratchett, to provide little notes and details which cannot be in the main text without limiting the reading experience. It also allows both authors to inject a large amount of humour into their writing.
It should also be mentioned that no book has gripped me from the introduction in a long time, although I am fairly sure no other book would use the word “crotch” before we even reach Chapter One!
‘The Magic of Terry Pratchett’ is a clever, well-informed biography which perfectly encompasses the humour of the Discworld creator whilst educating the reader of his journey to becoming the icon that he is today. I have no doubt that this has been a labour of love for Marc Burrows: when the kindle says you have 20 minutes reading time left and you have reached the bibliography, you know that a whole lot of research has been done!
Sir Terry also had the tendency to embellish his stories and this is a factor Burrows does not try to hide; highlighting when facts don't quite add up and almost analysing the situation to try and discern the truth. This was such a refreshing approach to a biography: the wool is not pulled over the eyes of the reader, nor the subject blindly believed for convenience.
It is important to note that this book transgresses the existence of Discworld and “the business with the elephant” and encompasses all of Sir Terry’s work: from short stories in the local paper to his TV documentary on assisted death.
The reader will also learn of the involvement of Rhianna Pratchett in her father’s work and discover that the “man in the hat” was not always the easiest man to work with.
I am going to need at least 3 copies upon release- can we preorder?